I wouldn’t start from here: I wouldn’t start from here: Some lessons from the real world of wildlife Some lessons from the real world of wildlife conservationconservation

Felicity Edwards The CSE Group

Michael Gibeau Parks Canada

Reasons to ParticipateReasons to Participate

Depends on who you are:

Parks Canada – grizzlies were being debated in the press

ENGOs – too many grizzlies were dying

Business/user groups – scientists were hijacking the agenda

Preparing the Ground for the integrative Preparing the Ground for the integrative conversationsconversations

- Q sort as a prompt

- Role of the champion – finding a decision maker who was willing to move forward

- Role of MG- How Grizzly Bears were being managed- The need for learning new skills and skills upgrading

(more on the second at the end)

Learning new skills: Learning new skills: Mind Mapping Participants’ valuesMind Mapping Participants’ values

PowerKnowledgeRespectSkill

WealthWell-beingAffectionRectitude

Display of people’s values by mind mapping People use them when they interact with each other Used as a continual reference point

(Lasswell 1971)

One mind map from the Banff caseOne mind map from the Banff case

Learning new skills: collaboration as a means Learning new skills: collaboration as a means to reach common ground to reach common ground

CONSULTATION CONSENSUSStatement of Purpose Statement of Purpose

To build consensus as a basis for decision. To build consensus as a basis for decision

To inform and become informed. To inform and become informed

To achieve stakeholder input, and buy-in. To achieve stakeholder input and buy-in

To meaningfully involve interested parties To meaningfully involve interested parties.

YOU WILL NOTICE THESE ARE THE SAME

CONSULTATION v. CONSENSUSCONSULTATION v. CONSENSUS

Participants: “Advocates” Participants: Decision-makers

Objectives: Hear the voices of many Objectives: Search for a single voice

Activity: Make representations Activity: Find trade-offs and common ground

Process: Predetermined by Process: Participant designed

decision-maker

Negotiation: Implicit Negotiation: Explicit

Outcomes: “Many inputs” to Outcomes: “One input”a decision maker One recommendation by many

YOU WILL NOTICE HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT

Theory v. Real WorldTheory v. Real Worldwith thanks to Rich Wallacewith thanks to Rich Wallace

Define ProblemsDefine Problems Define ProblemsDefine ProblemsIdentify SolutionsIdentify Solutions Identify SolutionsIdentify Solutions

Identify GoalsIdentify Goals

Describe TrendsDescribe Trends

Analyze ConditionsAnalyze Conditions

Make ProjectionsMake Projections

Propose AlternativesPropose Alternatives

Wonder why we are here?Wonder why we are here?

Look for information and researchLook for information and research

Look for more informationLook for more information

Take a leap and discussTake a leap and discuss

Reach a conclusionReach a conclusion

look for more informationlook for more information

Presenting problem versus the “real” problemPresenting problem versus the “real” problem

ParticipantsParticipantsSocial Process Influences Social Process Influences on Problem Orientationon Problem OrientationPerspectivesPerspectives

OutcomesOutcomes

EffectsEffects

SituationsSituations

StrategiesStrategies

ValuesValuesandand

MythsMyths

Bears are the problem

The railway is the problem

We don’t know enough is the problem

Parks Canada won’t deliver

This IPS group isn’t working

The “problems” of public policy problemsThe “problems” of public policy problemsNavid Ghaffarzadegan, John Lyneis, George P. Richardson Navid Ghaffarzadegan, John Lyneis, George P. Richardson

20082008

The technical perspective: Policy resistance from the environment: Need to experiment and the cost of

experimenting: Need to persuade different stakeholders: Overconfident policymakers: Need to have an endogenous perspective:

What is the problem?What is the problem?With thanks to Dr. Susan ClarkeWith thanks to Dr. Susan Clarke

The grizzly bears

Trust and relationships

Constitutive power of PC as land manager

Why difficult to make decision?Why difficult to make decision?

Trust :

To do what was agreed to

Change with changing staff

Where are we now? - clarifying and sustaining the Where are we now? - clarifying and sustaining the common interest. common interest.

It takes people to see themselves and others in value terms rather than simply interests

Some conclusions are:

a. Common interests are not enough of a bedrock upon which to form a problem solving group

b. Explicit reminding of the underlying values is needed

c. Need a super-ordinate goal to which everyone buys in

d. Clarity of what is really the problem may of may not help – depending on whether the group thinks it can do anything about it

The mythology of the “common ground”The mythology of the “common ground”

In the Banff case the land is managed by the Crown (or public lands in the US)

An overriding issue is of power and how it is manifest

a. known but not wielded and/or

b. known and wielded as a large stick

The working assumptions of the group in the Banff tried to address this issue of power by:

a. The ways in which information was used

b. By the ways in which decisions were made

c. By inclusion of the “landlord” as one of the parties in the room

Organizational ChangeOrganizational Change

Starting out: experience shows that working in a collaborative group brings into sharp relief those participating organizations who are able to manage this and those who are not.

Organizational limiting factors:

- Internal silos

- Inability to recognize the differences of internal decision making structures

- Getting too far ahead of your “constituents”

What is needed inside the participating organizations What is needed inside the participating organizations to enable this integrative approach to be successful?to enable this integrative approach to be successful?

Internal commitment Clarity of the role of the representative as broker Enough time to bring on board the folks back home Understanding and clarity about how each organization

works and what it needs

What can leadership look like in these What can leadership look like in these situations?situations?

Book Ends

A. Pre-conditions: intelligence, tolerance for change, communication skills and a desire to lead

B. Impact: presence, resilience and belonging

Elements of Leadership in the Banff caseElements of Leadership in the Banff case

before IPS Group with IPS group

1. Meaning sparring in the media sparring in the group

(purpose and strengths)

2. Managing energy getting “up” for the fight getting “up” for the debate

(minimizing depletion, flow and restoration)

3. Engaging less engagement more

(voice, ownership, risk taking and adaptability)

4. Positive framing skills not needed skills specifically learned

(self awareness, learned optimism and moving on)

5. Connecting not worrying about it making it happen

(network design sponsorship, inclusiveness)

Where are we now?Where are we now?

How does a group remain engaged with changing circumstances?

Short answer – it does not.

Ideas and thoughts appreciatedIdeas and thoughts appreciated

Thank you